NITE - Chemical Management Field

GHS Classification Result

GENERAL INFORMATION

Item	Information
CAS RN	96-05-9
Chemical Name	Allyl methacrylate
Substance ID	H30-B-019-MHLW, MOE
Classification year (FY)	FY2018
Ministry who conducted the classification	Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)/Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
New/Revised	Revised
Classification result in other fiscal year	FY2008
Download of Excel format	Excel file

REFERENCE INFORMATION

Item	Information
Guidance used for the classification (External link)	GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government (FY2013 revised edition (Ver. 1.1))
UN GHS document (External link)	UN GHS document
Definitions/Abbreviations (Excel file)	Definitions/Abbreviations
Model Label by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
Model SDS by MHLW (External link)	MHLW Website (in Japanese Only)
OECD/eChemPortal (External link)	eChemPortal

PHYSICAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Explosives	Not applicable	- -	-	-	There are no chemical groups associated with explosive properties present in the molecule.
2	Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
3	Aerosols	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Not aerosol products.
4	Oxidizing gases	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
5	Gases under pressure	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
6	Flammable liquids	Category 3	Warning	H226	P303+P361+P353 P370+P378 P403+P235 P210 P233 P240 P241 P242 P243 P280 P501	A flash point is 33 deg C (closed cup) (GESTIS (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
7	Flammable solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
8	Self-reactive substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	There is a chemical group associated with self-reactive properties (ethylene group) present in the molecule, but the classification is not possible due to no data.
9	Pyrophoric liquids	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.
10	Pyrophoric solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
11	Self-heating substances and mixtures	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	Test methods applicable to liquid substances are not available.
12	Substances and mixtures which, in contact with water, emit flammable gases	Not applicable	- -	-	-	The chemical structure of the substance does not contain metals or metalloids (B, Si, P, Ge, As, Se, Sn, Sb, Te, Bi, Po, At).
13	Oxidizing liquids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	The substance is an organic compound containing oxygen (but not fluorine or chlorine) which is chemically bonded only to carbon or hydrogen.
14	Oxidizing solids	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Liquid (GHS definition)
15	Organic peroxides	Not applicable	- -	-	-	Organic compounds containing no bivalent -O-O- structure in the molecule.
16	Corrosive to metals	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.

HEALTH HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
1	Acute toxicity (Oral)	Category 4	Warning	H302	P301+P312 P264 P270 P330 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1), it was classified in Category 4. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rats: 470 mg/kg (SIDS (2009))
1	Acute toxicity (Dermal)	Category 3	Danger	H311	P302+P352 P361+P364 P280 P312 P321 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 3. [Evidence Data] (1) LD50 for rabbits: 467 mg/kg (SIDS (2009)) (2) LD50 for rabbits: 210 mg/kg (SIDS (2009))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Gases)	Not applicable	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Liquid (GHS definition)
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Vapours)	Category 2	Danger	H330	P304+P340 P403+P233 P260 P271 P284 P310 P320 P405 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1) and (2), it was classified in Category 2. Besides, since the exposure concentration is lower than 90% of the saturated vapor concentration (7,592 ppm), the reference values in units of ppm were applied as a vapor with little mist. [Evidence Data] (1) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: 1.6 mg/L (310 ppm) (SIDS (2009)) (2) LC50 (4 hours) for rats: 1.47 mg/L (285 ppm) (SIDS (2009))
1	Acute toxicity (Inhalation: Dusts and mists)	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
2	Skin corrosion/irritation	Not classified	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Although in both of (1) and (2), application time is 24 hours, irritation was almost not observed. Therefore, it was classified as "Not classified." Besides, the classification result was changed from the previous classification by using new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) PII=1.5 was obtained in a skin irritation test (undiluted, semi-occlusive, 24 hours) with rabbits (SIDS (2009)). (2) PII=0.25 was obtained in a skin irritation test (undiluted, occlusive, 24 hours) with rabbits (SIDS (2009)).
3	Serious eye damage/eye irritation	Category 2B	- Warning	H320	P305+P351+P338 P337+P313 P264	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1)-(3), it was classified in Category 2B. Besides, the classification result was changed from the previous classification by using new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) There is a report that in an eye irritation test (OECD TG 405, GLP-compliant) with rabbits, as a result of application of this substance (purity 99.6%), an irritation reaction appeared in the iris and conjunctiva (MMA score 5.8), but all the animals recovered completely within 4 days (ECETOC TR48 (1998)). (2) There is a report that it was not irritating because in an eye irritation test (undiluted, GLP-compliant, n=6) with rabbits, all the animals showed slight conjunctival irritation but this recovered completely within 4 days (SIDS (2009), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)). (3) There is a report that it was not irritating because in an eye irritation test (undiluted, purity 99%, n=6) with rabbits, conjunctival irritation was observed in 2/6 animals but this recovered completely within 4 days (SIDS (2009), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
4	Respiratory sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
4	Skin sensitization	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on (1)-(3), there are reports that no sensitization was observed in plural GLP-compliant tests. However, since the number of animals was not enough to judge as not sensitizing, and no human data were obtained, it was classified as "Classification not possible." [Evidence Data] (1) There is a report that in a Maximization test (OECD TG 406, GLP-compliant, n = 10 (female)) with guinea pigs, a positive reaction was shown in 0/9 animals (SIDS (2009), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)). (2) There is a report that in a Maximization test (OECD TG 406, GLP-compliant, n = 10 (males and females each)) with guinea pigs, there was a positive reaction in 0/10 (SIDS (2009), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)). (3) There is a report that in a Maximization test (patch test) with guinea pigs, a positive reaction was shown in 0/10 animals (SIDS (2009), REACH registration dossier (Accessed Sept. 2018)).
5	Germ cell mutagenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] There are no in vivo data. Therefore, classification was not possible due to lack of data. [Evidence Data] (1) As for in vitro, there are reports that it was negative in bacterial reverse mutation tests and chromosomal aberration tests with human lymphocytes (SIDS (2009), ACGIH (7th, 2018)).
6	Carcinogenicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.
7	Reproductive toxicity	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] In the combined study with repeated dose toxicity by oral administration to rats in (1), no reproductive toxicity effects were detected, and also in a developmental toxicity test by the inhalation route with pregnant rats in (2), no developmental effects were detected at maternal toxic doses. However, since (1) is a screening test, it is impossible to conclude whether there is a concern for reproductive and developmental effects from the negative result. Therefore, findings on reproductive effects are lacking, so it was classified for this hazard class as "Classification not possible" due to lack of data. [Evidence Data] (1) In a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD TG 422) with rats dosed by gavage, no significant change was observed in reproductive toxicity in parental animals and effects on development of pups until postnatal day 6 even in the group of 60 mg/kg/day of the highest dose (SIDS (2009), ACGIH (7th, 2018)). (2) In a developmental toxicity test in which pregnant rats were exposed by inhalation to the vapor of this substance during the organogenesis period (gestational day 6-20), decreased body weight gain of maternal animals was observed at or above the lower dose of 12 ppm, but as for fetal developmental effects, only reduced fetal body weights were observed at the highest dose of 100 ppm (SIDS (2009), ACGIH (7th, 2018)).
8	Specific target organ toxicity - Single exposure	Category 2 (liver), Category 3 (narcotic effects, respiratory tract irritation)	Warning	H371 H336 H335	P308+P311 P260 P264 P270 P405 P501 P304+P340 P403+P233 P261 P271 P312	[Rationale for the Classification] As for (1), although it is considered as a sign of liver damage due to single exposure effects, there is no description of the doses where the findings were observed, and the manifested dose is unclear. Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (liver). In addition, based on (2) and (3), it is possible to classify it in Category 3 (narcotic effects, respiratory tract irritation). Therefore, it was classified in Category 2 (liver), Category 3 (narcotic effects, respiratory tract irritation). Besides, the classification result was changed from the previous classification by using new information sources. Besides, in (4), yellowing of the liver was also observed in repeated exposure. [Evidence Data] (1) In a test with male rats dosed by gavage (157-1,250 mg/kg), irregular dark yellow lesions in the liver, and adhesion of the stomach or liver to peritoneum were observed at necropsy of survivors after 14 days (SIDS (2009)). (2) In a test in which rats were exposed by inhalation to the vapor of this substance for 4 hours (1.08-1.60 mg/L: within the range of Category 1), secretory responses (reddish tears, lacrimation, salivation, nasal discharge) and respiratory organ symptoms (labored breathing, moist rales) were observed transiently, and decreased locomotor activity, drooping eyelids, ataxia, decreased response to external stimulation, decreased grip strength, etc. were observed in neurobehavioral examinations, which are considered to be symptoms caused by central nervous system depression rather than specific neurological symptoms (SIDS (2009)). (3) Also in another 4-hour inhalation test (1.02-2.13 mg/L: within the range of Category 1) with rats, symptoms such as abnormal breathing (excessive exaggerated breathing, gasping, slow breathing), lethargy, hypothermia are reported (SIDS (2009)). [Reference Data, etc.] (4) In a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD TG 422) with rats dosed by gavage, yellowing of the liver (2/5 females), histological findings of the liver (significant foci of degenerative/necrotic hepatocytes with slight periportal fibrosis, slight biliary proliferation, and green-pigment-laden macrophages in 3/5 females) and increased serum ALT activity were observed at 60 mg/kg/day (SIDS (2009), ACGIH (7th, 2018)).
9	Specific target organ toxicity - Repeated exposure	Category 2 (liver)	Warning	H373	P260 P314 P501	[Rationale for the Classification] Based on data in (1), it was classified in Category 2 (liver). The classification result was changed from the previous classification by use of new information sources. [Evidence Data] (1) In a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD TG 422) with rats dosed by gavage, yellowing of the liver (2/5 females), histological findings of the liver (3/5 females: significant foci of degenerative/necrotic hepatocytes with slight periportal fibrosis, slight biliary proliferation, and green-pigment-laden macrophages) and increased serum ALT activity were observed at 60 mg/kg/day (converted guidance value: 18.7 mg/kg/day) (SIDS (2009), ACGIH (7th, 2018)). [Reference Data, etc.] (2) There is a description that in a 4-week occlusive dermal application study with rabbits, at the administration sites of the skin, slight subdermal hemorrhage and hyperplastic thickening of the epidermis with hyperkeratosis were observed at the dose where deaths occurred (SIDS (2009), ACGIH (7th, 2018)). However, it was not adopted as evidence for the target organ because of irritant effects at the application sites.
10	Aspiration hazard	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	[Rationale for the Classification] Classification not possible due to lack of data.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Hazard class		Classification	Pictogram Signal word	Hazard statement (code)	Precautionary statement (code)	Rationale for the classification
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Acute)	Category 1	Warning	H400	P273 P391 P501	It was classified in Category 1 from 96-hour LC50 = 0.61 mg/L for fish (Pimephales promelas) (OECD SIDS: 2009).
11	Hazardous to the aquatic environment (Long-term)	Not classified	- -	-	-	Chronic toxicity data were not obtained. It was classified as "Not classified" due to rapid degradability (readily biodegradable, an average degradation rate by BOD: 62% (J-CHECK, 1999)), and no bioaccumulation estimate (LogKow: 2.12 (EST, PHYSPROP Database: 2018)).
12	Hazardous to the ozone layer	Classification not possible	- -	-	-	No data available.

NOTE:

GHS Classification Result by the Japanese Government is intended to provide a reference for preparing a GHS label or SDS for users. To include the same classification result in a label or SDS for Japan is NOT mandatory.
Users can cite or copy this classification result when preparing a GHS label or SDS. Please be aware, however, that the responsibility for a label or SDS prepared by citing or copying this classification result lies with users.
This GHS classification was conducted based on the information sources and the guidance for classification and judgement which are described in the GHS Classification Guidance for the Japanese Government etc. Using other literature, test results etc. as evidence and including different content from this classification result in a label or SDS are allowed.
Hazard statement and precautionary statement will show by hovering the mouse cursor over a code in the column of "Hazard statement" and "Precautionary statement," respectively. In the excel file, both the codes and statements are provided.
A blank or "-" in the column of "Classification" denotes that a classification for the hazard class was not conducted in the year.

To GHS Information